For the first hour of conflict, my neutral gave to me a round table with a great view

For the second hour of conflict, my neutral gave to me two succinct summaries
And a round table with a great view

For the third hour of conflict, my neutral gave to me three paraphrases
Two succinct summaries
And a round table with a great view

For the fourth hour of conflict, my neutral gave to me four mirrored feelings
Three paraphrases
Two succinct summaries
And a round table with a great view

For the fifth hour of conflict, my neutral gave to me five as-pir-in
Four mirrored feelings
Three paraphrases
Two succinct summaries
And a round table with a great view

For the sixth hour of conflict, my neutral gave to me six tested realities
Five aspirin
Four mirrored feelings
Three paraphrases
Two succinct summaries
And a round table with a great view

For the seventh hour of conflict, my neutral gave to me seven caucuses
Six tested reality
Five aspirin
Four mirrored feelings
Three paraphrases
Two succinct summaries
And a round table with a great view

For the eighth hour of conflict, my neutral gave to me eight explored BATNAs
Seven caucuses
Six tested reality
Five aspirin
Four mirrored feelings
Three paraphrases
Two succinct summaries
And a round table with a great view

For the ninth hour of conflict, my neutral gave to me nine fresh perspectives
Eight explored BATNAs
Seven caucuses
Six tested reality
Five aspirin
Four mirrored feelings
Three paraphrases
Two succinct summaries
And a round table with a great view

For the tenth hour of conflict, my neutral gave to me ten brainstorms
Nine fresh perspectives
Eight explored BATNAs
Seven caucuses
Six tested reality
Five aspirin
Four mirrored feelings
Three paraphrases
Two succinct summaries
And a round table with a great view

For the eleventh hour of conflict, my neutral gave to me eleven cookie breaks
Ten brainstorms
Nine fresh perspectives
Eight explored BATNAs
Seven caucuses
Six tested reality
Five aspirin
Four mirrored feelings
Three paraphrases
Two succinct summaries
And a round table with a great view

For the twelfth hour of conflict, my neutral gave to me twelve resolved issues
Eleven cookie breaks
Ten brainstorms
Nine fresh perspectives
Eight explored BATNAs
Seven caucuses
Six tested reality
Five aspirin
Four mirrored feelings
Three paraphrases
Two succinct summaries
And a round table with a great view

I am thrilled to announce that RSI has launched our new website! Many years in the making, AboutRSI.org now offers a one-stop shop for all things court ADR.

In the revamped Resource Center, you’ll find easier ways to access the resources you rely on, such as information about programs across the country and details on over 5,000 articles, studies and other resources related to court ADR.

You’ll also find new content written by the RSI team. I’m especially proud of our Guide to Program Success – covering how to design, manage and evaluate successful court ADR programs – written by RSI Director of Research Jen Shack and me.

]]>http://blog.aboutrsi.org/2017/uncategorized/next-era-in-court-adr-resources-now-available/feed/0Mediators, Can We Shift Perspectives on the “Blind Men and the Elephant” Story?http://blog.aboutrsi.org/2017/uncategorized/mediators-can-we-shift-perspectives-on-the-blind-men-and-the-elephant-story/
http://blog.aboutrsi.org/2017/uncategorized/mediators-can-we-shift-perspectives-on-the-blind-men-and-the-elephant-story/#commentsFri, 11 Aug 2017 16:45:56 +0000http://blog.aboutrsi.org/?p=1748I have a problem with a story that we in the conflict resolution field use and I’m hoping we can find a replacement for it. It’s the story about people who are blind encountering an elephant. It’s a metaphor and it’s used to make a point about differing perspectives, but from my perspective it sends a negative message about people who are blind.

If you don’t know the story, the idea is that several people who are blind encounter an elephant and because they each touch a different part of the elephant, they perceive it differently. Someone touches the tail and says an elephant is a rope, someone else touches the trunk and says it is a snake, etc. You get the idea. Only a sighted person – who can see the whole – understands that it is an elephant.

My problem with this story is that it defines people who are visually impaired as inherently limited and lacking in capability.They can only perceive part of the elephant. It presents the sighted person as capable, able to see the whole elephant and superior to the people who are blind. Would we use any other group as a stand-in for lack of ability? I can’t imagine what group that would be.

Some may say I am taking this metaphor too seriously or that I am asking for a world that is too politically correct. But as mediators, we are acutely aware of the meaning behind the words and metaphors we use. If I were sitting next to someone who was visually impaired when this story was used, I would be really uncomfortable, whether or not the story happened to bother that individual.

In our field, this story has become a well-worn trope used to make a point. It may even be considered part of our field’s lore; maybe not as well-known as the orange story, but familiar to many. In fact it was hearing an experienced mediator use this story recently that prompted me to write this post. Well-worn or not, I suggest that we as a mediation community stop using this story. Let’s apply our creativity and experiences to find another way to share this important point about differing perspectives.

]]>http://blog.aboutrsi.org/2017/uncategorized/mediators-can-we-shift-perspectives-on-the-blind-men-and-the-elephant-story/feed/9Mediation Shouldn’t Be More of a Barrier Than a Boonhttp://blog.aboutrsi.org/2017/policy/mediation-shouldnt-be-more-of-a-barrier-than-a-boon/
http://blog.aboutrsi.org/2017/policy/mediation-shouldnt-be-more-of-a-barrier-than-a-boon/#commentsFri, 17 Mar 2017 15:48:54 +0000http://blog.aboutrsi.org/?p=1727When it comes to defining mediation, I am not a strict constructionist. As long as a mediation program operates within the ethical boundaries, such as confidentiality, neutrality and voluntariness, which are articulated in the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators, I can agree with a wide variety of approaches.

Unfortunately, sometimes certain entities (e.g., courts, governments, schools, corporations) seem to use the word “mediation” as cover to make a process that is not really mediation appear more palatable. It is worse yet when the purpose of the program appears to be to create a set of hurdles. One of my core principles in mediation system design is that a mediation program should ease the path to resolution, not erect barriers to it.

A program being developed by the City of Concord, California, to address rising rental rates is looks like the latest example of breaking this principle. Their “mediation” program seems to be a series of barriers intended to make raising rents more than 10% in a year too much of a hassle for landlords.

Under the program, when a landlord notifies a tenant that their rent will increase more than 10% in a year, the tenant can require the landlord to participate in the “mediation” program. I don’t have a problem with this requirement. (This is one place where I part company with some in the mediation field who feel that the referral to mediation must, itself, be voluntary. I’m fine with requiring parties to attend mediation, as long as any resolution is still voluntary.) The mediator first attempts conciliation via phones calls. If that doesn’t resolve the matter, the mediator meets with the landlord and tenant in person.

If phone conciliation and mediation don’t work, i.e., resolve the issue, the “mediator” makes a nonbinding decision. This violates one of the basic tenets of mediation. Mediators are never supposed to make decisions about outcomes, whether binding or not. In this program, if the parties don’t agree to that decision, they can take the matter to a public hearing before a panel of a landlord, a tenant and a neutral party. A public hearing is pretty much the antithesis of another fundamental mediation principle: confidentiality.

From a public policy standpoint, it looks like the city is trying to accomplish a laudable goal. They have a problem with rents rising too steeply, and they want to slow that rise so that living in Concord is affordable. It seems that what they have done – with the phone conciliation, the in-person mediation, and the public hearing – is create a system that is enough of a hassle that they hope landlords will think twice about raising rents.

The problem is not only that mediators are doing things that are not mediation. Just as importantly, this program violates one of the cardinal rules of mediation program design. Mediation should never be more of a hurdle than a help.

City of Concord, go ahead and erect whatever barriers to rent increases you would like. Just please don’t dilute the valuable process of mediation by applying the label to something that doesn’t fit the name.

]]>http://blog.aboutrsi.org/2017/policy/mediation-shouldnt-be-more-of-a-barrier-than-a-boon/feed/3Reflecting on RSI Focus Groups in Washington, DChttp://blog.aboutrsi.org/2017/program-evaluation/reflecting-on-rsi-focus-groups-in-washington-dc/
http://blog.aboutrsi.org/2017/program-evaluation/reflecting-on-rsi-focus-groups-in-washington-dc/#commentsWed, 01 Mar 2017 21:24:22 +0000http://blog.aboutrsi.org/?p=1722Last week I had the honor of accompanying Jennifer Shack, RSI’s remarkable Director of Research, to Washington, DC. Jen is the principal investigator on an RSI evaluation of the child protection mediation program[1] in the DC Courts. I came along to facilitate the focus groups that are part of the evaluation. Each of the focus groups brought together a distinct group of lawyers who participate in mediation regularly: Guardians ad litem, lawyers for parents and prosecutors. The focus groups provided insight into how differing interests shape how mediation is perceived.

I found that my mediation skills, honed over many years, made it easy to shift into the role of focus group facilitator. Asking open-ended questions, encouraging everyone to participate and keeping the conversation moving were all familiar. Unlike mediation, the group didn’t have a goal of reaching agreement and I found that to be kind of liberating! What was more surprising to me was that it was difficult to remove my trainer/teacher “hat.” When a participant made a comment based on a misunderstanding of mediation, I had to resist the urge to engage in a conversation to educate the participant about mediation.

The groups of lawyers came from very different perspectives and often had different goals for mediation. It was fascinating to see how those different goals colored their expectations and perceptions of the mediation. I can’t go into detail about these differences because Jen is still in the early stages of the evaluation. Suffice to say, the groups differed greatly in their opinion of how mediation affects parents and what the mediator brings to the table. Despite those differences, the mediator in me saw similarities among the interests of the participants, particularly in how they want their time to be used.

The most striking similarity among all the focus group participants was their absolute dedication to making lives better for children who have endured some horrible experiences. These gatherings are one small part of RSI’s multi-prong evaluation that will collect data through surveys, interviews, reviews of court records, and observations of mediations and court hearings. We will also conduct focus groups for mediators and social workers.

I’m looking forward to seeing Jen’s evaluation results and her recommendations for improving the mediation program so that it works even better at obtaining good results for abused and neglected children.

[1] Child protection mediation is used when children are removed from their homes due to abuse and/or neglect. Mediation brings together a wide group of participants to discuss the case and what needs to happen to move it forward and move the children closer to having a permanent home – whether that is by returning to their parents or going somewhere else. Participants may include biological parents, foster parents, lawyers for the government, lawyers for the parents, lawyers for the children and social workers.